Month: January 2017

In a comment to my recent Facebook post regarding Moving Forward, a targeted parent lamented that mental health professionals refuse to assess for the attachment-related pathology of AB-PA.  In this lamentation, the parent alleged that AB-PA has “no teeth” to compel professional competence.

I thought my response to this parent may be more broadly of interest, so I am making it as a blog post.

AB-PA most definitely has teeth.

Accountability

The reason I spent nearly seven years researching and developing a description of the pathology from entirely within standard and established psychological constructs and principles is so that ALL mental health professionals can now be held accountable.  The rampant professional incompetence that has been allowed to flourish unchecked for 30 years by the Gardnerian model of PAS  – MUST END.

The APA ethics code requires professional competence (Standard 2.01a.).  Mental health professions are not allowed to be incompetent.

Professional Competence

But in order to activate Standard 2.01a of the APA ethics code, the pathology must be defined entirely through standard and established constructs and principles to which all mental health professionals can be held accountable.

So that’s what I set about doing, precisely to hold mental health professionals accountable.  With the publication of Foundations in which I define the pathology – in detail – entirely from within standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology, the seeds of accountability were planted.  All it requires to actualize the solution is for these seeds of accountability to grow into the tree of change.

The tree is growing.

Professional-to-Professional Consultation

I recently provided consultation to an attorney, and then at the request of the attorney I provided professional-to-professional consultation to the psychologist who was treating the family.

The treating psychologist entirely understood the nature of the pathology.  After our professional-to-professional consultation, this psychologist indicated that he was going to formally diagnose the family pathology as V995.51, Child Psychological Abuse, and he would then file a suspected child abuse report with child protective services to discharge his “duty to protect.”

A few weeks later, I was contacted by the attorney.  Child protective services was investigating a complaint of child psychological abuse.  The attorney was wondering how to handle this investigation by child protective services in a way that would be most productive to enacting a solution to the family pathology.

This following excerpt is from my email response to the attorney:

<Attorney>

The solution is building.  The issue you’re running into is that the solution is only part of the way here.

Returning to the blog…

The solution is coming.  It’s no longer a matter of IF a solution occurs.  With the introduction of AB-PA (Foundations) the issue has now become HOW SOON the solution arrives.

Notice in the email to the attorney I projected the solution will be achieved in 2018, perhaps 2019.  That’s because I am a single clinical psychologist working alone to change the entire mental health system.  Big system… little me, working alone.

The Gardnerian PAS experts are withholding their help.  It’s a turf-battle thing for them.  They would rather try to remain “experts” in Gardnerian “parental alienation” – a model that has offered no solution in over 30 years, than lend their aid to creating a solution that does not involve Gardnerian PAS.  They have not brought their banners to the battlefield.

We are left on our own to fight this battle to enact the solution.

But you, the targeted parents – authentic parents who love your children dearly – I could use your help to bring about the solution as quickly as we can achieve it.  I don’t want to wait until 2018 or 2020.  We can’t afford to wait.  Each day that passes without the solution is one day too long.

This needed to be solved yesterday.  Because of that, I am working as hard as I can to speed the solution’s arrival as fast as I possibly can.  That’s why I’m not writing journal articles yet.  They take too long to write and get published, and they have only a minimal real-world impact.  My time right now is better spent in other areas.  That’s why I’m taking such an assertive stance with the Gardnerian PAS experts, because their withholding of support for the paradigm shift slows the achievement of the solution.

I don’t mind being an annoying pain-in-the-behind if that’s what it takes to bring this nightmare of “parental alienation” to an end.  I will poke, prod, push, rail, irritate, annoy, and shout, if that’s what it takes to achieve the solution.  It’s not about me.  It’s about you and your children.  This nightmare that you’re going through must end.  And it must end as fast as is humanly possible to achieve.

For your part… you be kind.  Be relentless, but be kind. You must fight against the false narrative that you are too “angry and controlling.”  Be kind, but be relentless in your expectation of professional competence.

I am available for a professional-to-professional consultation with any mental health professional who seeks it (not the targeted parent, it must be with the involved mental health professional) .  All the mental health professional has to do is send me an email with the heading Professional Consultation.

Understanding Your Power

The American Psychological Association actually cares about your suffering.  Really, they do.  They just don’t know what to do about it because your prior advocates with them, the Gardnerian PAS experts, were trying to force them to accept an untenable “new form of pathology” model for defining the pathology.

In AB-PA, I have listened to the constructive feedback from the APA and I have provided them with a compromise solution that can both end your suffering while still maintaining professional standards for defining the pathology.  That’s what AB-PA is designed to do.  It’s designed to end the internecine debate within professional psychology and reunite professional psychology into a single unified voice to protect your children.

I have empowered you with AB-PA.  I urge you to live into your new power.  The helpless disempowerment of your trauma, as you have watched your beloved children become distorted by the pathology of “parental alienation,” and the emotional and psychological abuse you’ve endured from a non-responsive mental health system that does not recognize the severity of the pathology and a legal system mired in delays and ineffective solutions have lulled you into a trauma-induced slumber of your powerless victimization.

You are not a victim anymore. AB-PA empowers you, the child’s authentic and protective parent.

Gardnerian PAS gave up your power.  In proposing a “new form of pathology” it froze the mental health system response in endless internal arguments and division.  Gardnerian PAS separated you from what should be your natural allies in the domestic violence and child abuse protection advocates, who actually began to argue against you and against the construct of “parental alienation.”  In taking us off the path of professional diagnosis, Garnerian PAS has allowed rampant professional ignorance and incompetence to flourish unchecked.

AB-PA has returned your power to you. All that’s needed is for the paradigm to shift.

It is time to awaken from the imposed slumber of your helplessness and enter into your power.  Come together and become an unstoppable force for change.

The pathogen seeks to keep you alone and isolated.  I have seen the “source code” for this in the pathogen’s meme-structure – the themes by which it distorts and controls.  It seeks to isolate you from allies because in your isolation you are powerless against its lies. You scream the truth, but no one listens.  By keeping you isolated and alone, it can inflict it’s trauma.

I urge you to rise up and live into your power. Come together, join together.  Bring voice – and more.  Bring power.  AB-PA has teeth.

In one voice you were powerless.  In 100 you regain your voice.  In 1,000 you enter your power.  In 10,000 you become an unstoppable force for change.  Become an unstoppable force for change.

Moving Forward

Teeth

The Gardnerian definition of the pathology as a “new form of pathology” represents a failed paradigm.  Just look around you at the current state of professional incompetence in assessment, diagnosis, and treatment.  The current situation is what the Gardnerian PAS model gives us; rampant professional incompetence and 30 years of continual division and debate within professional psychology.

The Gardnerian PAS model is a failed paradigm.  Scoreboard.

AB-PA defines the pathology entirely through standard and established constructs and principles that define domains for required professional competence in assessment and diagnosis:

Attachment theory

Personality disorder pathology

Family systems therapy

The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA are all established and accepted forms of pathology in professional mental health:

Attachment system symptoms

Personality disorder traits

An encapsulated persecutory delusion

Because AB-PA defines the pathology entirely from within standard and established psychological constructs and principles and uses diagnostic indicators that are fully established, defined, and standard symptoms in mental health, all mental health professionals can now be held accountable for conducting an appropriate assessment and for making an accurate diagnosis of the attachment-related family pathology of a child’s cross-generational coalition with a narcissistic/(borderline) parent surrounding divorce.

Notice that I did not use the term “parental alienation” – to recover your lost power within professional psychology, we must use the proper terms to activate Standard 2.01a of the APA ethics code.

Mental health professionals CANNOT be held accountable to “parental alienation.”  The construct of “parental alienation” is NOT a defined construct in clinical psychology.

The Diagnosis of Unicorns

This is important to fully understand.  Gardnerian PAS and the construct of “parental alienation” offers no solution.  We must switch to AB-PA to achieve the solution.

AB-PA is specifically designed to expose the pathogen from it’s veil of concealment and to hold mental health professionals accountable for making an accurate diagnosis of the family pathology.  When we use AB-PA, we are able to stand on the rock-solid Foundations of established psychological constructs and principles, which then leads to three definitive diagnostic indicators of the pathology, codified into a simple and easy-to-use checklist for the assessing mental health professional.

Foundations is the spear that defines the pathology using standard and established constructs and principles.  The diagnostic indicators are the head of the spear, cutting through the hidden manipulation of the pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent.  The Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting is the tip of the spear, penetrating professional incompetence in assessment and diagnosis.

All mental health professionals CAN be held accountable to AB-PA because all of the constructs and principles used in defining the pathology of AB-PA are standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology, and all three of the diagnostic indicators of AB-PA are standard and established symptoms that are fully accepted in professional psychology and are fully within the scope of practice for mental health assessment by all mental health professionals.

Assessment

For a mental health professional to refuse to even assess for the three diagnostic indicators of the pathogenic parenting surrounding attachment-related pathology in the family would likely represent a violation of Standard 9.01a of the APA ethics code which states:

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings.

If the mental health professional has not even assessed for the attachment-related family pathology of a cross-generational coalition of the child with a narcissistic/(borderline) parent (notice I didn’t say “parental alienation – you must use the correct professional terms), then they have not based their opinions and recommendations – including diagnostic statements and forensic testimony – on “information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings,” in violation of Standard 9.01a of the APA ethics code.

Again, this is important to understand… If you try to hold the mental health professional accountable for assessing “parental alienation,” you will fail.

You MUST use the proper professional terminology provided by AB-PA.  Attachment-related pathology.  Triangulation.  Cross-generational coalition.  Pathogenic parenting.  These are standard and established – fully accepted – psychological constructs and principles in professional psychology.  With these constructs you have power.  With these constructs you become dangerous to professional ignorance and incompetence

AB-PA has teeth.  Under explicit ethical code standards of practice, mental health professionals are not allowed to be incompetent in their assessment, diagnosis, and treatment.

Professional Competence

If a mental health professional refuses to assess for the pathology, I would suggest that the targeted parent begin to lay the “paper trail” relative to this refusal in preparation for filing a licensing board complaint against the mental health professional.

Be kind – always be kind.  But expect professional competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of your family.

In laying the paper trail, read “Letter to the Stranger.”  In a polite and short letter to the mental health professional:

Document – briefly yet meaningfully – your deep and abiding love for your child, and your deep heartbreak and suffering.

Document your request that the mental health professional assess for the attachment-related pathology of a cross-generational coalition with a narcissistic/(borderline) parent (notice I did not say “parental alienation” – you must use the correct terms).

Document your request that the mental health professional consult with Dr. Childress, a recognized expert in the attachment-based pathology of a child’s rejection of a parent following divorce (notice I did not say “parental alienation”)

Document that you provided the mental health professional with my booklet Professional Consultation, or my letter Professional-to-Professional Consultation, or my handout on the Attachment-Related Pathology of Parental Alienation.

Perhaps within the community of targeted parents you can come together to write some template letters to therapists that can be shared with each other.

For that mater, what if targeted parents agreed to write letters of support for each other to involved mental health professionals, so that a request from a targeted parent for group support could result in hundreds of letters flowing in to the mental health professional asking for this professional to please document the child’s symptoms using the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting and to please consult with Dr. Childress regarding the pathology.

The pathogen seeks to keep you alone and isolated.  I’ve read the meme-structure in its “source code” that does this.  I urge you to come together.  Work for each other.  Fight for each other.

Alone you are powerless.  In 100 you have reclaimed your voice.  In 1000 you have reclaimed your power.  In 10,000 you become an unstoppable force for change

Moving Foward

Be kind.  Be relentless, but always be kind.

In documenting your requests, you are writing the letter to the mental health professional in order establish the paper-trail documentation for your upcoming licensing board complaint against the mental health professional for violation of Standard 9.01a (and possibly for a violation of Standard 2.01a regarding boundaries of professional competence, and possibly for a violation of Standard 3.04 regarding harm to the client, and possibly for their failure in their “duty to protect”).

Possible Causes of Action

You are writing the Letter to the Stranger; documenting; establishing the paper trail.  Be brief.  Be reasonable.  Be kind.

Refusal to Assess

If the mental health professional refuses to assess for the pathology of pathogenic parenting involving a cross-generational coalition of the child with a narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent (notice I did not say “parental alienation” – you must use the proper professional terms to regain your power), despite all of your respectful and pleasantly kind requests for cooperation, then you may need to file a licensing board complaint.

Sample Complaint Letter Template

Will this help in obtaining better professional care in your specific case?  Probably not.  If you are working with an ignorant and incompetent mental health professional who refuses to even assess for pathology, then you’re in trouble from the start.

But in filing a licensing board complaint you are taking the proper actions relative to professional ignorance and intransigent incompetence.  You are also helping other targeted parents who may follow after you with this mental health professional.

Targeted parents need to come together to put ALL mental health professionals on notice that you will no longer accept negligent professional ignorance and incompetence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of your families.

ALL mental health professionals need to understand that they will – with 100% certainty – face a licensing board complaint if they fail to assess for the attachment-related pathology of a child’s cross-generational coalition with a narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent (notice I did not say “parental alienation”).

Now imagine for a second, that you have made respectful and pleasantly cooperative requests asking for a formal assessment and documentation of the child’s symptoms using the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting, and the mental health professional has steadfastly refused to even assess for the symptoms,…

… and imagine that you then request a meeting with this mental health professional and provide this mental health professional with the letter you intend to send to the licensing board (that you create specific to your situation using the Sample Complaint Letter Template),…

… and imagine that you calmly, politely, and oh-so-kindly inform the mental health professional that you are asking one last time for assessment and documentation of the child’s symptoms, and if the mental health professional refuses then you will be left no alternative than to send this letter and your supporting documentation to the licensing board…

… what do you imagine the mental health professional’s response will be?

Be kind.  Always be kind. But also know this, AB-PA has teeth.  It most definitely has teeth.

Will the mental health professional suddenly be cooperative and competent?  Probably not.  If they are that arrogant and incompetent, you are already in lots of trouble.  But you are also empowered to confront professional incompetence.  You no longer have to simply accept professional incompetence.

Be kind.  Be relentless, but always be kind.

Oh, and by the way, I am always happy to talk to this mental health professional.  You don’t need to debate professional competence with them.  I’m more than happy to do that for you.  Simply direct them to me: drcraigchildress@gmail.com

Parent: “Well, that may be true Mr./Ms. Therapist, but I’m asking that you consult with Dr. Childress and you can raise that issue with him.”

Totally fine by me.

If you file a licensing board complaint, will the licensing board do anything? Maybe not.  We cannot control what the licensing board does.  What we can control is to ensure that all ignorant and incompetent mental health professionals who refuse to even assess for the pathology are aware that they will – with 100% certainty – face a licensing board complaint from the targeted parent.

We are putting ignorant and incompetent mental health professionals in a position of playing Russian roulette with their career.  Did the licensing board to anything this time?  No?  Lucky you.  How about this time?  No?  Lucky you again.  How about this time?…

Or they can simply assess for the pathology using the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting.  If they don’t find the pathology, that’s fine.   Just do the assessment and document the results of the assessment in the patient record.

Together – United for Change

You are all in this together.  We cannot solve this for any one family, until we solve it for all children and all families.

We want to make the path of professional ignorance and incompetence very dangerous for them; while at the same time we have made the path of knowledge and competence very easy – all they have to do is simply complete the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting and document the results in the patient record, and then they will be entirely safe from the targeted parent filing a licensing board complaint.

In addition, in filing licensing board complaints against individual mental health professionals who refuse to even conduct an assessment of the child’s symptoms, we are putting pressure on the APA to do something (i.e., to convene a high-level conference of experts in attachment theory, personality pathology, family systems therapy, and childhood trauma, to produce a white paper on the issue) to provide leadership and guidance regarding the assessment of this attachment-related family pathology.

If the APA does nothing, if the APA remains silent in protecting children from the pathogenic parenting of narcissistic and borderline personality parents, then the child’s loving and authentic parent, the targeted parent, will have no other choice in fulfilling their obligation to protect their children from Child Psychological Abuse by the narcissistic/(borderline) ex-spouse than to seek professional competence in assessment – case-by-individual-case – through seeking enforcement of Standard 9.01a – case-by-individual-case.

AB-PA has teeth.  It most definitely has teeth.

By returning us to the path of professional diagnosis, AB-PA empowers targeted parents.  It is time to wake up from your trauma-imposed slumber of helplessness.  You are helpless no more.  You are armed and dangerous to professional incompetence.

I am just a single lone psychologist in Southern California.  You are thousands of parents fighting for your children.  I have armed you with AB-PA.  I have laid out the roadmap to the solution.

If you leave it to me to solve, it will take me another couple of years because I am just a single lone psychologist in Southern California.  If you bring your thousands of voices – and your power – to the battlefield, who knows how quickly we can accomplish the solution.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

Internationally

What about internationally?  I hear you.

My current focus is on shifting the approach in the U.S. that will then provide the leadership guidance to mental health systems in other countries.

But why wait for me?  You can start this process. The key is to return to the path of standard and established psychological principles and constructs to define the pathology (Foundations).  Then hold mental health professionals in your country accountable to the Standards of professional competence laid out in the professional ethics codes in your countries (Professional Competence).

Be kind.  You want to avoid being characterized as being “too angry and aggressive.”  Be kind.  Be relentless, but always be kind.

Find some allies in professional mental health in your countries who are willing to work with the AB-PA model, and who can carry the voice of the paradigm shift in your countries.

I also have two online seminars available through the Master’s Lecture Series of California Southern University.

Parental Alienation: An Attachment-Based Model (7/18/14)

Treatment of Attachment-Based Parental Alienation (11/21/14)

Since AB-PA is based entirely in standard and established psychological principles of the attachment system and personality disorder pathology, there is absolutely zero reason for any professional psychology system that is even remotely near 21st century standards not to properly assess and accurately diagnose the pathology.  Zero reason.

The pathology is essentially “disordered mourning” surrounding the divorce, with the “primary case” being the narcissistic/(borderline) parent who is then transferring this parent’s pathological mourning to the child through manipulative and exploitative parenting practices.

From John Bowlby:  “The deactivation of attachment behavior is a key feature of certain common variants of pathological mourning” (p. 70)

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. NY: Basic Books.

From Otto Kernberg:  “They [narcissists] are especially deficient in genuine feelings of sadness and mournful longing; their incapacity for experiencing depressive reactions is a basic feature of their personalities.  When abandoned or disappointed by other people they may show what on the surface looks like depression, but which on further examination emerges as anger and resentment, loaded with revengeful wishes, rather than real sadness for the loss of a person whom they appreciated.” (p. 229)

Kernberg, O.F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Aronson.

From John Bowlby:  “Disturbances of personality, which include a bias to respond to loss with disordered mourning, are seen as the outcome of one or more deviations in development that can originate or grow worse during any of the years of infancy, childhood and adolescence.” (Bowlby, 1980, p. 217)

John Bowlby and Otto Kernberg are preeminent figures in professional psychology.  And look at the dates of those statements, 1975 and 1980.  Forty years ago.   This is not new stuff.

Internationally, if your mental health system is even remotely modern, there is absolutely zero reason for it not to recognize the pathology and properly diagnose the pathology.

The only reason they’re not recognizing and properly diagnosing the pathology is because they’re trying to recognize and diagnose something called “parental alienation” proposed by Richard Gardner.  The moment we return to standard and established constructs and principles, the proper diagnosis (pathological mourning transmitted to the child through the manipulative and exploitative parenting practices of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent, who is the “primary case” of disordered mourning) becomes immediately available

I’ve even cited the Standards in some of your countries related to boundaries of competence:

Professional Competence

You need to find a mental health professional in your country who is willing to voice the need for professional competence… or you can wait for me to solve it in the U.S. and then invite me over to your country.  But why wait for me?  Start the ball rolling.  Professional competence.

On April 29, 2017,  I will be the keynote speaker at the:

Parental Alienation Symposium 2017:

Solutions for Professionals and Families

I’ll be speaking along with Dorcy Pruter, Rod McCall, Shelbie Michaels, Rebecca Bradley, and Eric Ransleben on the solutions to “parental alienation” across the spectrum of systems.

In my talk, I intend to address practical solutions in three areas:

The Mental Health System:  The mental health assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of the attachment-related family pathology of “parental alienation.”

The Legal System:  Approaches for attorneys in collaborating with mental health professionals in obtaining the necessary professional documentation for presentation to the Court.

The Family System:  What targeted parents can do while waiting for the solution; how to respond to the alienated child’s hostility and rejection.

CPS Social Workers:  I also urge child protection social workers to attend to learn what is coming in the mental health assessment and diagnosis of psychological child abuse.  As AB-PA becomes the standard of care for the assessment and diagnosis of the attachment-related pathology of “parental alienation,” more and more mental health professionals will be filing child abuse reports with child protection agencies based on a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.

It is time for children’s protective services to begin considering how they will respond to these reports from mental health professionals that include a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.

I have a lot of material to cover at this symposium in a short period of time.  I do not intend to waste your time with tired lamentations of how bad things are, and worn-out complaints about how we wish change would happen.  We are creating the change.  Now.

From 8:45 to 10:00, I’m scheduled to present the opening Keynote address, Real Solutions to Parental Alienation – Now.  In this talk I’m planning to focus on the treatment-focused assessment protocol for mental health professionals (with a description of the behavior-chain assessment format), and on approaches to the interface of attorneys with the mental health professionals to obtain the necessary psychological documentation for presentation to the Court.

Court-involved therapists, child custody evaluators, and attorneys will be interested in the information contained in this talk.

From 1:15 to 2:15, I’m scheduled to present For Therapists: Treating the Attachment-Related Pathology of Parental Alienation.  This is going to be a very interesting therapist-to-therapist presentation on how to resolve the attachment-related pathology of “disordered mourning” created by a narcissistic/(borderline) parent in a cross-generational coalition with the child.

Toward the end of this talk, based on a deeper-level understanding for the attachment-related pathology of “disordered mourning,” I am going to discuss how the targeted parent can respond to the child’s angry-hostile rejection prior to achieving the protective separation period necessary for treatment and recovery.

AB-PA is going to replace Gardnerian PAS as the professional-level definition for the attachment pathology of a child rejecting a normal-range and affectionally available parent following divorce.  A treatment-focused assessment protocol using the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting and the Parenting Practices Rating Scale is going to become the professional standard of practice in assessing and diagnosing attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.

On April 29, 2017, I will describe the roadmap for this fundamental change in how we address the family pathology of “parental alienation.”

Court-involved therapists, child custody evaluators, and child protection social workers will find the content of what I discuss valuable.  Legal professionals working with the family pathology of “parental alienation” will find the content of what I discuss valuable.  Targeted parents will find the content of what I discuss valuable.

If you cannot be at this Symposium, not to worry (too much).  This is just the start.  The changes we will be discussing on April 29 will be rolling into the mental health and legal systems generally.  AB-PA is an accurate description of the pathology from within standard and established psychological principles and constructs.  There is nothing for establishment mental health to accept or reject, because all of the pathology-constructs have ALREADY been accepted.

I’m working with therapists and attorneys across the country one-on-one to create these changes.  Symposiums and presentations to larger groups speeds the process, but the change is coming.  It is no longer a matter of “if only” – it has now become a matter of “how soon.”

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

I recently received a request from Mr. Adrian Bota in Romania on behalf of the Association Against Parental Abuse requesting my assistance in their efforts to have “parental alienation” formally recognized as a form of child abuse.  Apparently they are making some progress in Romania, but not yet enough.

His specific request of me was to:

“Please send us any of your work which can support the urgency of the intervention needed to escape from this form of child abuse and to set the custody accordingly.  Without these measures and without the corrective power of the State, we cannot protect our children.”

I have also periodically been contacted by targeted parents in other countries, both from English-speaking and non-English speaking countries, seeking my help and support for their efforts to end the family pathology of “parental alienation” in their countries.  I fully recognize the international nature of this form of attachment-related family pathology, and my thoughts generally are to focus my efforts on correcting the mental health system in the United States with the goal of changes within the U.S. mental health system acting as the first domino of influence in changing the response of mental health systems in other countries.

But if I can be of any specific assistance in the meantime, I’m more than happy to be as helpful as I can be.   The following is my email reply to Mr. Bota.  My reply to him may also be more broadly applicable to the efforts of targeted parents in other countries seeking to end the family nightmare of “parental alienation” in their countries, so with the permission of Mr. Bota and the Association Against Parental Abuse in Romania I am turning my email to him into a full blog post.

Dear Mr. Bota,

I will assist your efforts in any way I can.

The primary resource is my book, Foundations.  Unfortunately for the use of the book in foreign settings, the book is written in English and is fairly long and dense in its descriptions of the pathology, so it is unlikely to be read by politicians.  What it does do, however, is serve as the professional foundation for the origins of the three diagnostic indicators and the assessment protocol.

What you will likely want to focus on in my work is the treatment-focused assessment protocol, and the two assessment instruments that are used in this protocol:

• The Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting

• The Parenting Practices Rating Scale

These assessment instruments are both posted on my website and are in the public domain.  You have my permission to translate them into Romanian if that is helpful to you.  Please simply specify in a footnote that “Dr. Childress has not reviewed the content of this translation for accuracy.”  If you choose to translate these instruments into Romanian, you may want to put the name of the translator under my authorship name (Translated by So-n-So).  If there are technical terms that you would like to ask me to explain a little more fully to aid in the translation, please feel free to contact me.

The formal handout for the treatment-focused assessment protocol is also on my website. 

• Treatment-Focused Assessment Protocol

Since the Treatment-Focused Assessment Protocol handout is also on my website, it too is in the public domain and you have my permission to translate it into Romanian, with the caveat that you specify on this translation that I have not reviewed the translation for accuracy, and again you may wish to specify the person or group responsible for the translation.

I am currently in the process of publishing my second book, Diagnosis.  Until this book is published, the diagnostic indicators and Associated Clinical Signs used in the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting are described in Chapter 4 of my book, Essays on Attachment-Based Parental Alienation, and I have made a pdf of Chapter 4 available on my website. 

Since this chapter is on my website and is from a blog post of mine on 11/3/15 (Diagnosis of Parental Alienation), the content from Chapter 4 of Essays is similarly in the public domain.  If you want to translate this Chapter into Romanian, that would also be fine with me with the caveat that you indicate in a footnote that I have not reviewed the translation for accuracy (and you may want to specify the person or group responsible for the translation).

For documenting and monitoring the child’s symptoms prior to and during treatment (an ABA single-case evidenced-based treatment design), I recommend using the Parent-Child Relationship Rating Scale available from my website.  As with the other forms, you have my permission to translate this form into Romanian as well.

Best wishes,

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

It’s confirmed and set:

Thursday, June 1 from 3:30 – 5:00 at the Annual Convention of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC).

Workshop 29 – An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Diagnosis and Treatment

Presenters:  Craig Childress & Dorcy Pruter

The solution is here. 

The trans-generational transmission of “disordered mourning,” mediated by the personality pathology of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent in a cross-generational coalition with the child against the targeted-rejected parent.

“The deactivation of attachment behavior is a key feature of certain common variants of pathological mourning” (Bowlby, 1980, p. 70; emphasis added).

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. NY: Basic Books.

The attachment system is the brain system that governs all aspects of love and bonding throughout the lifespan, including grief and loss. 

The suppression of a child’s attachment bonding motivations toward a normal-range and affectionally available parent is fundamentally an attachment-related pathology.

The solution is here.  June 1, 2017 from 3:30 – 5:00.  Boston.

I am going to focus on diagnosis during my potion of the talk.  So far, I have been relatively quiet about the Associated Clinical Signs.  In Boston, June 1, from 3:45 to 4:30, I am going to unpack the origins of each of these 12 Associated Clinical Signs.  Diagnosis is recognizing the complete pattern of symptoms. 

The High Road Protocol

What’s more, for everyone who wants to know how the High Road protocol achieves a restoration of the child’s normal-range attachment bonding motivations within a matter of days, we will explain the High Road protocol and we will explain how it accomplishes what it does.

Several years ago, when Dorcy first approached me to review her High Road to Family Reunification protocol, I was working on a model for “reunification therapy” (Reunification Therapy: Treating “Parental Alienation”; Childress, 2014).  Dorcy approached me after a conference we both attended and said she disagreed with my position that restoration of the child’s normal-range attachment bonding motivations would require six months to a year of therapy, and she said that she could restore the child’s normal-range attachment bonding motivations within a matter of days.

I’m a clinical psychologist.  I do psychotherapy.  I teach models of psychotherapy at the graduate level.  Needless to say, I was skeptical.  There is not a model of psychotherapeutic change out there that can restore a child’s normal-range attachment bonding motivations within a matter of days.  Yet I knew enough to know what I don’t know (if that makes sense), so I withheld judgement until Dorcy and I met in my office a few weeks later to allow me to review the content of her protocol.  A meeting planned for 2-hours became a 6-hour discussion.

Within the first 30 minutes of reviewing the content of her protocol I immediately recognized how she achieves a restoration of the child’s normal-range attachment bonding motivations within a matter of days – typically about the middle of the second day, sometimes into the third day, then – pop – the attachment system reactivates.  No force.  No focus on the past.  No blame.  A gentle solution-focused approach that simply involves watching videos (videos that activate normal-range empathy, compassion, and critical thinking skills) and family workshop activities teaching structured problem-solving and family communication skills.  But it’s the sequence… I see how this works… first…. and then… and then… and pop – the attachment system reactivates.  Okay, I get it.

I teach models of psychotherapy.  I know models of psychotherapy.  Any form of psychotherapy will require six months to a year of treatment to reorient the child to the child’s distorted grief response surrounding divorce.  No form of psychotherapy could restore the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment bonding motivations within a matter of days.

But the High Road protocol is not a form of psychotherapy.  

As a clinical psychologist, I am excited to present to professional psychology an alternative model of change – a catalytic rather than integrative model of change.

Professional psychology emerged from Freud’s “talking cure” that sought to resolve the person’s deep inner conflicts.  Then differing models of psychotherapy developed from within differing schools for creating change, cognitive-behavioral models of change are based on principles of behavior change discovered with lab animals, humanistic-existential models of personal growth are based in life’s larger meaning, and family systems models of change recognize children’s behavior as embedded in the surrounding family context of relationships. 

But the High Road protocol uses none of these approaches.  It is an entirely different universe of change.  A gentle step-wise sequence of catalytic change in the brain systems surrounding the attachment system, the brain systems of empathy, compassion, and critical thinking (executive function).  Step-by-gentle-step, the High Road protocol activates normal functioning in these surrounding brain systems… and then – pop – the normal-range functioning of the attachment system reactivates.  Bonding, love, tears.  The grief resolves.  All fixed.

On June 1, 2017, Dorcy has agreed to present her protocol in a way that allows the audience to understand, aided by my descriptive commentary, how it achieves what it achieves.  We will walk, step-by-step, through the protocol structure leading to the “pop” – the restoration of the child’s normal-range attachment-bonding motivations.

One of my excitements as a clinical psychologist is that I recognize that this type of catalytic-change approach – which is unlike anything we do in psychotherapy – is applicable to other life-issues beyond attachment-related issues.  The proper catalytic steps in the proper sequence can restore the normal-range functioning of previously dysfunctional “software patterns” in these brain systems.

June 1, 2017; 3:30 – 5:00.  Boston.  Workshop 29.

An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Diagnosis and Treatment

Presenters:  Craig Childress & Dorcy Pruter

The solution to the attachment-related pathology of AB-PA… and the beginnings of a very interesting dialogue within professional psychology regarding catalytic-transformative solution-focused interventions.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

I have  been working with several different attorneys recently who are trying to obtain an appropriate treatment-focused assessment for their clients’ children who are experiencing the attachment-related pathology of AB-PA (the trans-generational transmission of disordered mourning from the allied parent to the child through the formation of a cross-generational coalition of the allied parent with the child against the targeted-rejected parent).

In response to the needs of these attorneys, I have written a formal description of the recommended treatment-focused assessment protocol, and I have been in consultation with the court-involved psychologists regarding the implementation of this assessment protocol. 

With the possibility that this recommended treatment-focused assessment protocol may be more broadly helpful to other targeted parents and other attorneys seeking to secure a proper treatment-focused assessment, I have posted this description to my website:

Recommended Treatment-Focused Assessment Protocol

Child Custody or Family Therapy

Divorce is not the end of the family.  Divorce is the end of the marriage, but the family continues because of the children. 

Divorce simply involves a shift in the family structure from an intact-family structure that is united by the marriage, to a new separated-family structure that is now united by the children, through continuing co-parenting duties and by the bonds of shared affection between the children and both parents.

In high-conflict divorce, the family is having difficulty making this transition from an intact family structure united by the marriage to the new separated family united by the children through the ongoing bonds of shared affection between the children and both parents.

The “splitting” pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent cannot accommodate to ambiguity.  In the mind of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent the now ex-spouse must also become an ex-parent as well — the ex-wife must become an ex-mother, the ex-husband must become an ex-father.  This is a neurologically imposed imperative of the splitting pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

When the splitting pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent is added to the family systems pathology a cross-generational coalition, the already pathological cross-generational coalition is transmuted into a particularly virulent and malignant form that seeks to entirely terminate the other parent’s relationship with the child.

The pathological parenting of the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent is forcing the child to choose sides in the inter-spousal conflict surrounding the divorce.  In the mind of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent, achieving full-custody possession of the child represents a “prize to be won” by whichever parent is deemed to be the “better parent” in their spousal-divorce.

However, the child is not a “prize to be awarded” to the supposedly “better parent” – this is an entirely wrong conceptual framework for understanding child custody.

Children benefit from a complex relationship with both parents.  Child custody is not a “competition” between the parents over who is the “better parent” to determine which parent should be awarded the “custody prize” of the child. Children benefit from a complex relationship with both parents.

Except in cases of abusive parenting practices, there is no theoretical or research foundation in professional psychology that would allow us to determine who represents the “better parent.”  Parents differ in their approaches.  That’s okay.  Children love both parents and want the love of both parents in return.  That’s normal.  Children benefit from a complex relationship with both parents.  That’s the reality.

In all cases except child abuse, the recommendation from professional psychology should be for a 50-50% custody time-share. There is no basis in the professional scientific or research literature that would allow professional psychology to differentiate between the potential impact of alternative custody time-share options.

If the parents wish to collaboratively work out a different time-share arrangement, that is their right as parents.  But from a professional psychology perspective, there is no theoretical or research foundation that would allow professional psychology to predict the future in any specific situation and determine the relative outcomes from a 60-40% timeshare as compared to a 70-30% timeshare as compared to an 80-20% timeshare as compared a 50-50% timeshare.  There are too many exceedingly complex variables.

Except in cases of child abuse, the only professionally responsible recommendation for custody time-share from all mental health professionals is for a 50-50% custody time-share based on the foundational principle that children benefit from a complex relationship with both parents.

A child’s rejection of one parent following divorce and the child’s non-compliance with court orders for custody time-share visitation is a treatment-related issue, not a child custody issue. 

Professional psychology should offer the court guidance regarding the treatment needs of the family that are required to help the divorcing family successfully transition from its prior intact-family structure united by the marriage to its new separated-family structure united by the children. 

Problems in the family’s transition from an intact-family structure to a separated-family structure following divorce are a treatment-related issue, not a child custody issue.

The allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent is framing the issues as custody-related because of the false belief that the child represents a “prize” in the spousal conflict, to be awarded to whichever spouse is deemed to be the “better parent.”

This false belief in the “child-as-a-prize” to be awarded to the “better parent” is an oft cited argument by the narcissistic/(borderline) parent in these custody disputes; that the other parent “was not an involved parent” prior to the divorce and so should not have equal time-share with the child following the divorce; or that the other parent is not a “good parent” so they don’t “deserve” to have the child in the post-divorce world.

However, the child is NOT a “prize” to be awarded. 

Children love both parents and want the love of both parents in return.  Children benefit from complex relationships with both parents. 

In all cases except child abuse, custody time-share should be awarded 50-50% unless the parents cooperatively agree to a different alternative time-share agreement.

The reason the treatment-related issues within the family become a custody-related conflict is because the narcissistic/(borderline) parent is trying to “win” complete possession of the child (it is a neurologically imposed imperative of the splitting pathology that the ex-spouse must also become an ex-parent; the ex-wife must become an ex-mother, the ex-husband an ex-father).  

The child represents a narcissistic prize, a symbol of their victory and superiority, and a weapon to “destroy” the “potential enemy” of the ex-spouse.

“The need to control the idealized objects, to use them in attempts to manipulate and exploit the environment and to “destroy potential enemies,” is linked with inordinate pride in the “possession” of these perfect objects totally dedicated to the patient.” (p. 33)

Kernberg, O.F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Aronson.

When professional psychology colludes with this false belief that the role of the assessing mental health professional is to determine the “winner” of the “better parent” competition who will then be awarded the “custody prize” of the child, then professional psychology becomes co-opted into the pathology.

Children love both parents and want to be loved by both parents in return.

Children benefit from a complex relationship with both parents.

Helping the family successfully transition from the prior intact-family structure to the new separated-family structure following divorce is a treatment-related issue, not a child custody issue.

Professional assessments should assist the court in determining the treatment-related needs of the family, not determining the “winner” of the “child custody prize” in the spousal “competition” for the child created by the pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

What’s Hard to Understand?

For the life of me, I can’t figure out what’s so hard for mental health professionals to understand about all of this?  Granted, the pathology is complex, but its also relatively simple because it is always exactly the same.  Understanding psychopathology is what mental health professionals do for a living.  It shouldn’t be that hard for them to understand since I have defined the attachment-related pathology in detail across multiple levels of analysis:

Family Systems Level:

At the family systems level, the pathology reflects the inability of the family to transition from an intact-family structure to a separated family structure because of the failure of the narcissistic/(borderline) personality structure to process the grief, loss, and sadness surrounding divorce. The child is being triangulated into the spousal conflict through a cross-generational coalition with the allied-fragile parent against the other parent in order to stabilize the family system in its dysfunctional transition to a new separated family structure.

The attachment-related pathology of a child’s rejection of a normal-range and affectionaly available parent following divorce represents the trans-generational transmission of pathological mourning (Bowlby) from the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent to the child through the formation of a cross-generational coalition (Haley; Minuchin) with the child against the other parent.

Personality Disorder Level – Splitting:

The addition of parental splitting pathology from a narcissistic/(borderline) parent to the cross-generational coalition with the child transmutes an already pathological cross-generational coalition into a particularly virulent and malignant form that seeks to entirely terminate the child’s relationship with the other parent.  

The splitting pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) personality cannot accommodate to ambiguity.  Following divorce, the ex-husband must also become an ex-father; the ex-wife must also become an ex-mother.  This is a neurologically imposed imperative of the splitting pathology.

Personality Disorder Level – Projective Displacement of Abandonment-Rejection:

The narcissistic/(borderline) parent is triangulating the child into the spousal conflict as a means to stabilize the collapsing personality structure of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent in response to the inherent rejection and abandonment surrounding divorce.  The narcissistic/(borderline) parent is using the child’s induced rejection of the other parent to projectively displace onto the other spouse the core rejection and abandonment fears of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

“I’m not the rejected person (spouse) – you are.  I’m not the inadequate person (spouse), you are.  The child is rejecting you because of your inadequacy as a parent (as a person; (spouse) – you’re the inadequate one, not me.  The child is choosing me because I’m the all-wonderful, perfect, and ideal parent (person).  The child will never abandon me.  You’re the abandoned one; you’re the inadequate and rejected person (spouse), not me.”

Attachment System Level

At its deeper substrate in the attachment networks of the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent, the pathology represents the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma from the childhood of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent to the current family relationships, mediated by the personality disorder pathology of the parent that is itself a product of this parent’s childhood attachment trauma.

This trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma is in the schema pattern of “abusive parent”/”victimized child”/”protective parent” that is contained in the internal working models of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent’s attachment networks.  It is a false drama – a kabuki theater of display – played out in a false trauma reenactment narrative born in the childhood attachment trauma of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent, a childhood attachment trauma that was responsible for creating the fragile personality structure of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

My goodness gracious, how many differing yet interlocking ways, across multiple levels of analysis, do I need to describe the pathology?

Furthermore, I have identified the extensive research literature surrounding the psychological control of the child:

“Psychological control refers to parental behaviors that are intrusive and manipulative of children’s thoughts, feelings, and attachment to parents.” (Barber & Harmon, 2002, p. 15).

The essential impact of psychological control of the child is to violate the self-system of the child.” (Barber & Harmon, 2002, p. 24).

“Rather than telling the child directly what to do or think, as does the behaviorally controlling parent, the psychologically controlling parent uses indirect hints and responds with guilt induction or withdrawal of love if the child refuses to comply.  In short, an intrusive parent strives to manipulate the child’s thoughts and feelings in such a way that the child’s psyche will conform to the parent’s wishes.” (Kerig, 2005, p. 12)

“In order to carve out an island of safety and responsivity in an unpredictable, harsh, and depriving parent-child relationship, children of highly maladaptive parents may become precocious caretakers who are adept at reading the cues and meeting the needs of those around them. The ensuing preoccupied attachment with the parent interferes with the child’s development of important ego functions, such as self organization, affect regulation, and emotional object constancy.” (Kerig, 2005, p. 14)

“Parental psychological control is defined as verbal and nonverbal behaviors that intrude on youth’s emotional and psychological autonomy.” (Stone, Buehler, & Barber, 2002, p. 57)

“The central elements of psychological control are intrusion into the child’s psychological world and self-definition and parental attempts to manipulate the child’s thoughts and feelings through invoking guilt, shame, and anxiety. Psychological control is distinguished from behavioral control in that the parent attempts to control, through the use of criticism, dominance, and anxiety or guilt induction, the youth’s thoughts and feelings rather than the youth’s behavior.” (Stone, Buehler, & Barber, 2002, p. 57)

In his book, Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents, published by the American Psychological Association, Brian Barber and his colleague, Elizabeth Harmon, identify over 30 empirically validated studies documenting the psychological control of children.

I have also identified the research that links the Dark Triad personality comprised of 1) Narcissistic personality traits, 2) Psychopathic personality traits, and 3) Machiavellian manipulation to,

High-Conflict Patterns of Communication:

Horan, S.M., Guinn, T.D., and Banghart, S. (2015). Understanding relationships among the Dark Triad personality profile and romantic partners’ conflict communication. Communication Quarterly, 63, 156-170.

Seeking Revenge in Intimate Relationships:

Giammarco, E.A. and Vernon, P.A. (2014). Vengeance and the Dark Triad: The role of empathy and perspective taking in trait forgivingness. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 23–29

Rasmussen, K.R. and Boon, S.D. (2014). Romantic revenge and the Dark Triad: A model of impellance and inhibition. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 51–56 

Lying, Manipulative Fabrication, and Deception:

Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M. Baughman, H.M., and Vernon, P.A. (2014). What a tangled web we weave: The Dark Triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 117–119

Baughman, H.M., Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M., and Vernon, P.A. (2014). Liar liar pants on fire: Cheater strategies linked to the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 35–38

The Absence of Empathy:

Jonason, P. K. and Krause, L. (2013). The emotional deficits associated with the Dark Triad traits: Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 532–537

Wai, M. and Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 794–799

And to Attachment-Related Pathology:

Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M., and Bethell, E. (2014). The making of Darth Vader: Parent–child care and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 30–34

I have developed a simple checklist for the documentation of child symptoms that are created by the pathogenic parenting of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent who is transferring this parent’s own disordered mourning to the child:

The Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting

I have developed a simple rating scale for documenting the normal-range or problematic parenting of the targeted-rejected parent:

Parenting Practices Rating Scale

I have developed a simple relationship rating scale for ongoing treatment-related documentation of the child’s symptoms to facilitate evidence-based documentation and treatment:

Parent-Child Relationship Rating Scale

In Foundations I have elaborated, in great detail, an attachment-based description of the pathology from within each of three distinct levels of analysis, 1) the family systems level, 2) the personality disorder level, and 3) the attachment system level, as well as integrating the description across all three levels, with the attachment system level creating the personality disorder level, and the personality disorder level creating the family systems level.  In Foundations, I also describe in detail the distorted relationship-based communication processes by which the child’s rejection of the targeted parent is created.

I have now described a structured Treatment-Focused Assessment Protocol.

Child Protection

At its core, pathogenic parenting is a child protection issue – not a child custody issue.

Pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 3), in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

Assessment leads to diagnosis, diagnosis guides treatment.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

Barber, B. K. (Ed.) (2002). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barber, B. K., & Harmon, E. L. (2002). Violating the self: Parenting psychological control of children and adolescents. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting (pp. 15-52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kerig, P.K. (2005). Revisiting the construct of boundary dissolution: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 5-42.

Stone, G., Buehler, C., and Barber, B. K.. (2002) Interparental conflict, parental psychological control, and youth problem behaviors. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association.